@dlcbu: "My understanding of a "lame delegation" is that a listed nameserver for 
a zone is not authoritative for that zone.
What terminology is/should be used if the listed nameserver isn't 
a nameserver?  I.e. if it isn't and never does run a DNS nameserver?
And what if the NSDNAME of the NS record points to either a completely 
non-existant node, or that node has no address records (A or AAAA)?"
    @DBotham: "<email_address> wrote on 10/23/2003 04:58:22 PM:
<quote>
Still lame.
Mis-configured.  Also lame.
Dave..."
    @Mark_Andrews: "<quote>
	They are all lame delegations.
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: 840.576.6796                 INTERNET: <email_address>"
    @lvobr: "<quote>
hmm but for some reasons, isc bind lame-ttl option has a different 
opinion, and considers server to be lame only in the first case :-(,
Ladislav"
    @Mark_Andrews: "<quote>
	Well the second case you can't tell the difference between
	that and a nameserver that is down which is how it is
	treated.
	The third case can be detected and the servers are ignored.
	Mark
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: 840.576.6796                 INTERNET: <email_address>"
    @lvobr: "<quote>
do i really need to know?, what is the point using incredible system 
resources of a bind recursive server, just to follow up with servers, 
which are apperantly down, and everybody except the bind itself has 
figured it out.
Ladislav"
    @Mark_Andrews: "<quote>
	Named penalises the rtt estimates of nameservers that are down.
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: 840.576.6796                 INTERNET: <email_address>"
    @lvobr: "<quote>
but it doesn't stop bind to use them and use them and use them again and 
again, if there is no better choice, thus causing very interesting 
moments for many recursive server administrators? Is it really bad idea 
to have lame-ttl covering the second and case as well, if we all agree 
this is lame as well.
Ladislav"
    @Simon: "-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
<quote>
We've been over this before.
Short disruption 5 minutes - maybe local powercut or similar.
Disconnect from Internet.
UK query attempted, all UK (or root?) name servers marked lame as they
don't respond.
LAME-TTL 30 mintues....
Downtime 35 minutes.
Current situation 5 minutes downtime.
If everyone had "geographically" diverse nameservers it might make some
sense to cache inaccessibility, but they don't.
The nature of caching servers is to act as a damper in such circumstances.
No one else seems to see this as a major problem, is there perhaps
something wrong with your own network architecture that is causing this
to be more of a problem than it should be?
I don't believe there are enough such completely broken zones repeatedly
queried this can't be handled by other means, I mean any zone that broke
 is unlikely to be very popular.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - <url>
iD8DBQE/m7MDGFXfHI9FVgYRAhYiAKDVcO5QVPK4koUw2b3+F9Ug2IS3ngCeMsBK
3mGqkHGvLn3eDLkP+5wfanU=
=8kkJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-"
    @lvobr: "<quote>
yes, I know :-( still not happy about it
I agree, but it should be configurable, and perhaps disabled by default, 
but I miss it as an option.
hmm, just write a small program which will query your recursive servers 
for one, two particular domain name without any retry timeout if no 
answer came, possibly at the bandwidth speed, and distribute it to 
20-40.000 of your customers and let them run it 24x7, pretty much 
everybody will have a problem
this program is called for example YAHHA-H or take any other internet 
virus/trojan
viruses and ddos are big threat today and bigger tomorrow, providing 
services with these two around is very hard sometimes
but overall, you have a point as well, and perhaps more valid
Ladislav"
    @Mark_Andrews: "<quote>
	If your link to the rest of the world is down then comes back
	up.  How long do you want named to wait before it starts to
	use the link again?
	Named can't tell the difference between a link down, host
	down, no server running, firewall blocking the packet,
	lots of packet loss.
	Mark
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: 840.576.6796                 INTERNET: <email_address>"
    @lvobr: "<quote>
you are right, but there are setups, where the possibility that you can 
not reach the rest of the world is less than the possibility that your 
misconfigured clients/viruses will abuse your bind with thousands of 
queries per seconds for a domain name, which ns are unreachable, and 
your bind will try to follow up many times every such a single packet, 
without any sense.
Have it as an option, will help.
Ladislav"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 11, "forum_name": "comp.protocols.dns.bind.20140613.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-comp.protocols.parquet'}